Nasopharyngeal Angiofibroma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical profile of nasopharyngeal angiofibromas, various surgical approaches, and the outcome of surgery. DESIGN: The retrospective study was carried out in 110 consecutive cases of nasopharyngeal angiofibroma over a period of 25 years. SETTING: A hospital-based study. METHODS: In 65 patients, a transpalatal approach was used, and in 38 patients, a lateral rhinotomy approach was used. The tumour was removed by external ethmoidectomy in 2 cases and in by transnasal approach in 3 cases. A modification of the transpalatal approach was also designed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were regularly followed up for any recurrence for 2 to 5 years. RESULTS: Of 118 operated cases, in 33 patients, recurrence was observed. Four cases had to be operated three times and one case four times. All of the recurrences were observed within 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Angiofibroma, a disease of adolescent males, arises from either the lateral wall or the roof of the nasopharynx. Patients usually present at the late stage of the disease. Surgery is the treatment of choice. No single approach is applicable to all cases. However, most of the tumours are excisable by a lateral rhinotomy approach, with less chance of recurrence. The modified transpalatal approach provides excellent exposure. Recurrence occurs within 2 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".